4.  In 1948 and 1950 a flat owned by an ancestor of the applicant was nationalised. In 1969 the State sold that flat to Mr and Mrs B. It seems that Mr B. died on an unspecified date prior to 1987.
5.  On 11 May 1992 the applicant brought an action against Mrs B. and the municipality of Plovdiv under section 7 of the Restitution of Ownership of Nationalised Real Property Act of 1992 (“the Restitution Act of 1992”), seeking a declaration that the sale of the flat had been null and void. He stated that the sale had been made in breach of the law and that Mr B., who had been registered as an “anti-fascist and anti-capitalist veteran” – a title which at the relevant time carried a number of privileges guaranteed by law – had abused his position to obtain the flat.
6.  At the first hearing, held on 4 August 1992, the Plovdiv District Court admitted written evidence and gave leave to the parties to adduce further evidence.
7.  At the next hearing, held on 26 October 1992, the court rejected the applicant's request to supplement his statement of claim, admitted written evidence, heard the parties and reserved judgment.
8.  On 5 November 1992 the court, sitting in private, observed that the claim as initially worded by the applicant was inconsistent and instructed him to clarify his request for relief. It scheduled a new hearing for 4 December 1992. On 30 November 1992 the applicant declared that he claimed the restitution of the apartment under section 7 of the Restitution Act of 1992.
9.  The hearing scheduled for 4 December 1992 was adjourned as the municipality of Plovdiv had not been properly summoned.
10.  The Plovdiv District Court held hearings on 20 January, 13 April and 28 December 1993, and 12 April 1994. At the hearing on 13 April 1993 it granted the applicant's request to constitute the heirs of Mr B. as additional defendants. One hearing listed for 21 September 1993 was adjourned because the newly constituted defendants had not received copies of the statement of claim. At the hearings of 28 December 1993 and 12 April 1994 three of the newly constituted defendants, two of whom were residing in Russia, were represented by counsel.
11.  In a judgment of 8 June 1994 the Plovdiv District Court ordered that the part of the flat which had been acquired by Mrs B. be restituted to the applicant and dismissed the remainder of his claim.
12.  On 13 July 1994 the applicant appealed. So did the defendants.
13.  At a hearing held on 3 October 1994 the Plovdiv Regional Court admitted written evidence and reserved judgment.
14.  In a judgment of 23 February 1995 the Plovdiv Regional Court quashed the lower court's judgment and dismissed the entirety of the applicant's claim.
15.  On 11 April 1995 the applicant lodged a petition for review. The Plovdiv District Court tried to serve a copy of the petition on the counsel of the two defendants who were residing in Russia, but she refused to accept the service of process, stating that her power of attorney did not extend to the review proceedings. On 4 January 1996 the Plovdiv District Court agreed that the representative's power of attorney was only valid until the end of the second‑instance proceedings and accordingly ordered that the defendants be served personally in Russia. In view of this, on 12 April 1996 the Bulgarian Ministry of Justice sent a letter rogatory to the Russian authorities, asking them to serve a copy of the petition on the two defendants. It seems that the letter rogatory was executed in respect of one of the defendants on an unspecified date prior to November 1998. However, it remained unexecuted in respect of the other defendant. Between 1996 and 1999 the Bulgarian Ministry of Justice sent nine reminders to the Russian authorities and twice asked the Bulgarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs for assistance. However, these efforts were to no avail. Accordingly, the petition for review remained with the Plovdiv District Court and was not sent to the Supreme Court of Cassation for examination.
16.  In the meantime, in 1997, the applicant found out that the two defendants residing in Russia were on a visit to Bulgaria and apprised the Plovdiv District Court about that. On 30 September 1997 the court ordered that a copy of the petition for review be served on them in Bulgaria. However, the process was returned to the court with a note that the defendants could not be found at the address specified.
17.  On 23 February 1998 the applicant complained about the protraction of the proceedings to the Ministry of Justice. In a letter of 7 March 1998 the Ministry informed the applicant that the letter rogatory was unfortunately still not executed and that, regrettably, the Russian authorities used to procrastinate in the execution of letters rogatory. On 16 April 1999 the applicant complained to the chairperson of the Plovdiv District Court and asked him to apply Article 44 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1952 (“the CCP”) (see paragraph 26 below).
18.  Despite the lack of service, on an unspecified date in 2000 the Plovdiv District Court sent the petition for review to the Supreme Court of Cassation.
19.  The first hearing before the Supreme Court of Cassation, listed for 8 November 2000, was adjourned due to the defective summoning of the two defendants residing in Russia.
20.  On 28 February 2001 the Supreme Court of Cassation held a hearing, despite the absence of the two defendants residing in Russia. It briefly noted that all defendants, including those residing in Russia, had been properly summoned.
21.  In a final judgment of 31 May 2001 the Supreme Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant's petition for review.